Now that all the nastiness of the discovery phase is behind us in the Apple vs. Psystar case, both parties are trying to get the case settled before it goes to court, much like the recent Vernor vs. Autodesk case. Both Apple and Psystar have filed motions asking for a summary judgement.

Of course, but absurdity is no problem for some people when it comes to defending Apple. "

Thom, if you want to write articles about absurdities of copyright law in the United States I might even agree with you (I'd saw I would agree with you because much of US copyright law is absurd, but you'd likely get so many things wrong that I couldn't agree in the end anyways). But, you really need to differentiate between people defending Apple and people trying to bring a sense of reality to your fantasy land of rainbows and unicorns. It's not defending Apple to point out that much of your commentary on lawsuits is factually incorrect and most of your commentary is legally incorrect.

What's sad is that I've lost count of how many stories you've posted where myself and others have pointed out the legal inaccuracies and pointed you at case law and statute. Yet you have yet to a single time write something that even made an attempt to be factually accurate and based on real legal understanding.

So, you may find people "defending Apple" to be absurd, but I can assure you that nothing is absurd as watching you attempt to write something that even tangentially relates to the law.